IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 25697 of 2025 ======================================================== SACHIN @ DEVRAJ DHARAMBHAI PARDI (NUT) & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ======================================================== Appearance: O I PATHAN(7684) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR LB DABHI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ======================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 23/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. O.I. Pathan on behalf of the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondent-State. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The present applicants who have been arraigned as an accused have preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191045250549 of 2025 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City for offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4) and 54 of the Bhatriya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicants having been rejected by the learned p. 1 Trial Court. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicants would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicants, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicants may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail. 5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicants as coming out from the charge- sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants and the application may be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- (i) The allegation being of having committed theft etc. and whereas prima facie it would appear that the involvement of the present applicants is clear more particularly since the muddamaal had been recovered from the present applicants. (ii) This Court has considered the fact that the applicants aged around 20 and 21 years, more particularly the applicants not having p. 2 any antecedents and the applicants being in custody since 20.07.2025 and the charge-sheet having been filed by the Investigating Officer. (iii) Though co-accused is stated to have large number of antecedents yet the applicants could not be kept in custody indefinitely for the said reason. 7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicants in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicants on regular bail. 9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191045250549 of 2025 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; p. 3 [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] Mark their presence in the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months ; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residential address without prior intimation to the I.O. 10. The Authorities will release the applicants only if they are not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 11. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 12 At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicants for being released on regular bail. 13. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NIRU p. 4 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.